Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

[leclerc]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

As of today 6/3, the bailiff has said the car will go for auction next week, unless the fine is paid in full, and the council have refused to discuss the matter further...

Ok email newlyns and the chief executive of the council:

Here is Newlyns CEO: kmccarthy@newlynplc.co.uk

And here is the Lewisham CEO: barry.quirk@lewisham.gov.uk

Mention the regulations that has been give by Big Al(post 8) and print and scan the email from the finance company. Tell both of them that one of them is responsible for sorting this mess out and so once they decide what they want to do then can they contact you and it will be dealt with.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

I have a few observations which in a world where honesty and common sense would apply, would then be able to assist the OP. Unfortunately this is the make believe world of Newlyn who have a director who has openly criticised in court for lying, so whilst the OP does have the law on her side, Newlyn has the car and like a dog with a bone it would rather be kicked than let go of the prize.

First the belief that the OP has spoken to the council - almost certainly not. It is far more likely that the OP spoke to Lewisham's unadmitted back office outsourced company masquerading as the council. That will be NSL whose knowledge of the correct lawful procedure as execised by its staff who are not legally qualified, would not fill a postage stamp. Hence the pathetic 'Its nuffink t'do wiv me mate' appproach'. It's all they have got to fight with. The courts have decreed on several occasions that the local authority is entrely responsible for the actions of its agents. Parallel the dog again

Secondly, if a warrant of execution (as it must be given the excessive claimed fees) was ever prepared by Lewisham (not NSL) and sent to Newlyn in line with Civil Procedure Rule 75.7.3. (TEC Rule 10.3 - DoT Rule 10.66) - I'll give you the money mesself. Your post unsurprisingly never mentioned a warrant - that is because it doesn't exist and thus couldn't be given to you, though Newlyn will happily supply the OP with a fake and pass it off as genuine. Bit like the director who forgot how to be honest in court.

Note - I said Newlyn (whose staff are also legally unqualified) which has no legal right to prepare warrants -rather than Lewisham, the only party which does have that legal authority - but because they allow NSL full rein without any supervision - has no idea that it should have prepared this warrant months ago before passing it to Newlyn.

Thirdly none of these idiots seem to have the first idea that Section 68 (1) of the Taking Control of Goods Act doesn't apply to parking by virtue of the fact that Section 3 (1) of the same Act lists all the courts that are covered and singularly omits the Traffic Enforcement Centre. That list specifies the courts entitled to issue warrants. Even Newlyn would have to admit that the TEC doesn't isssue warrants otherwise it would also have to admit that the 'warrant' it will issue if pressed has to be a fake.

The short term solution is to wait for the outcome of the TE7 and TE9 that is currently preventing Newlyn from selling the car by which time this three card trick might just collapse if the jokers holding the cards are pressurised into answering the points I have raised..

[Divamama]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

I have a few observations which in a world where honesty and common sense would apply, would then be able to assist the OP. Unfortunately this is the make believe world of Newlyn who have a director who has openly criticised in court for lying, so whilst the OP does have the law on her side, Newlyn has the car and like a dog with a bone it would rather be kicked than let go of the prize.

First the belief that the OP has spoken to the council - almost certainly not. It is far more likely that the OP spoke to Lewisham's unadmitted back office outsourced company masquerading as the council. That will be NSL whose knowledge of the correct lawful procedure as execised by its staff who are not legally qualified, would not fill a postage stamp. Hence the pathetic 'Its nuffink t'do wiv me mate' appproach'. It's all they have got to fight with. The courts have decreed on several occasions that the local authority is entrely responsible for the actions of its agents. Parallel the dog again

Secondly, if a warrant of execution (as it must be given the excessive claimed fees) was ever prepared by Lewisham (not NSL) and sent to Newlyn in line with Civil Procedure Rule 75.7.3. (TEC Rule 10.3 - DoT Rule 10.66) - I'll give you the money mesself. Your post unsurprisingly never mentioned a warrant - that is because it doesn't exist and thus couldn't be given to you, though Newlyn will happily supply the OP with a fake and pass it off as genuine. Bit like the director who forgot how to be honest in court.

Note - I said Newlyn (whose staff are also legally unqualified) which has no legal right to prepare warrants -rather than Lewisham, the only party which does have that legal authority - but because they allow NSL full rein without any supervision - has no idea that it should have prepared this warrant months ago before passing it to Newlyn.

Thirdly none of these idiots seem to have the first idea that Section 68 (1) of the Taking Control of Goods Act doesn't apply to parking by virtue of the fact that Section 3 (1) of the same Act lists all the courts that are covered and singularly omits the Traffic Enforcement Centre. That list specifies the courts entitled to issue warrants. Even Newlyn would have to admit that the TEC doesn't isssue warrants otherwise it would also have to admit that the 'warrant' it will issue if pressed has to be a fake.

The short term solution is to wait for the outcome of the TE7 and TE9 that is currently preventing Newlyn from selling the car by which time this three card trick might just collapse if the jokers holding the cards are pressurised into answering the points I have raised..

Thanks for for that Fair Parking!!! On Friday I received a letter from NSL saying they opposed the TE7/TE9 as they followed the correct procedure, with a full breakdown of dates. The notice to owner was sent on 23/12 (like I said I moved in November) and the charge certificate sent in April '14 was 'return to sender'..... By this point the DVLA already had my updated address ( tax disk renewed in May, renewal letter arrived 2nd week of April) so why they sent charge certificate to previous address is a mystery...also they claim the original pcn was placed on my car... Well....!!!!

[Guest]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

HI Divama

Just looking through this thread and as far as I can see there is only one issue. Newlyns should not have seized the goods if the car was on HP, this is not permitted as stated before on here by statute, they cannot take it even if they contact the finance company, because even the finance company cannot take it without an order from the court. It does not matter how much is left on the agreement, until the final payment (in conditional sale) or the optional purchase fee(in HP) is paid the car is the property of the finance company, and therefore exempt for seizure under section 10 schedule 12 of the TCE.

So what exactly do Newlyns say which justifies them taking and keeping the car, surely they know they are leaving themselves open to legal action, as indeed are the authority since they are equally liable.

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

Rather than take risks by starting court action, may I suggest that the OP contacts Milo by PM? She just may be able to unlock Newlyn's door.

[beary1977]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

Typical Bully Boy actions, as stated before the car is on finance, they have been provided with proof that the car is on a finance, as milo has said dog with a bone, they can't sell the car, they can't charge you fee's for removal of the car or storage because they had no right to do so in the first place, they are just doing the same old thing, shout loudly and deny everything.

[Divamama]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

HI Divama

Just looking through this thread and as far as I can see there is only one issue. Newlyns should not have seized the goods if the car was on HP, this is not permitted as stated before on here by statute, they cannot take it even if they contact the finance company, because even the finance company cannot take it without an order from the court. It does not matter how much is left on the agreement, until the final payment (in conditional sale) or the optional purchase fee(in HP) is paid the car is the property of the finance company, and therefore exempt for seizure under section 10 schedule 12 of the TCE.

So what exactly do Newlyns say which justifies them taking and keeping the car, surely they know they are leaving themselves open to legal action, as indeed are the authority since they are equally liable.

good afternoon!!!

this thing is just draining!! So I emailed Newlyn and the council as advised, and I got a call back from Newlyn who claim they have the legal right to take the vehicle if there is proof of potential ownership dependent on how much is left to pay for the HP(??!?!?!?) and the person said its in the new regulations of 2014. When I asked which section he told me to do my own research, and went on a long speech about how they (Newlyn) are a reputable company that make £100 million a year, they wouldn't do anything to bring their name down, bla bla bla, and they have suspended all action pending the outcome of the TE7, but if that is successfully opposed then they will proceed unless I pay the fine of £984 +storage which all adds up to £2000+ and this increases with each day the car is in storage. The storage fees are 50£ excluding vat ( so precise!!)

[Guest]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

good afternoon!!!

this thing is just draining!! So I emailed Newlyn and the council as advised, and I got a call back from Newlyn who claim they have the legal right to take the vehicle if there is proof of potential ownership dependent on how much is left to pay for the HP(??!?!?!?) and the person said its in the new regulations of 2014. When I asked which section he told me to do my own research, and went on a long speech about how they (Newlyn) are a reputable company that make £100 million a year, they wouldn't do anything to bring their name down, bla bla bla, and they have suspended all action pending the outcome of the TE7, but if that is successfully opposed then they will proceed unless I pay the fine of £984 +storage which all adds up to £2000+ and this increases with each day the car is in storage. The storage fees are 50£ excluding vat ( so precise!!)

This is complete nonsense, ownership of goods/under a HP agreement does not pass to the hirer until the last payment.

There is nothing in the regulations which contradicts section 10of the TCE

[Guest]

Did they put any of this hogwash in writing?

[ploddertom]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

Have some posts disappeared? I was following some this morning that aren't here now.

[ploddertom]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

Did they put any of this hogwash in writing?

Don't be silly.

[Amethyst]

Re: Newlyn and LB Lewisham taking control of car on finance!!!

Have some posts disappeared? I was following some this morning that aren't here now.

Just some off topic stuff moved to Lamp post xx